1 / 12

LAND USE CONTROLS

LAND USE CONTROLS. THE ISSUES AND CHALLENGES Presented by MGP Partners LLC December 7, 2000. MGP Partners LLC. Founded in 1997 as real estate firm focused on rehabilitating contaminated sites nationwide

katima
Download Presentation

LAND USE CONTROLS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. LAND USE CONTROLS THE ISSUES AND CHALLENGES Presented by MGP Partners LLC December 7, 2000

  2. MGP Partners LLC • Founded in 1997 as real estate firm focused on rehabilitating contaminated sites nationwide • Partners have completed over 30 risk based cleanups in 22 states as brownfield redevelopers • Providing advisory services to corporations, institutions and governments for developing strategies to finance, remediate, redevelop and manage the risks of properties having environmental conditions • Experience with Superfund, RCRA and Brownfield sites Presented by MGP Partners

  3. Importance of Land Use Controls (“LUCs”) • Viability of LUCs underlie most risk based cleanups • Failure of LUCs may cast doubt on acceptance of risk based cleanups and affect the achievement of GPRA goals • Important public policy interest in ensuring integrity of LUCs Presented by MGP Partners

  4. Interested Stakeholders • Government Regulators • Owners/PRPs • Buyers • Lending Institutions • Neighbors • Communities • Municipalities Presented by MGP Partners

  5. Where are we today? • LUCs not uniformly integrated into remedy selection process • No clear-cut approach to monitoring compliance • State laws and resources vary • Enforcement is uncertain • Remedies for failure of LUCs not clearly defined • Regional Inconsistencies Presented by MGP Partners

  6. Areas of Concern • Viability of Specific LUCs • Financial Assurances • Monitoring • Notice • Remedial Costs Involved with Failure of LUCs • Compliance • Access to Information Presented by MGP Partners

  7. Design of Pilot Study • A conceptual model for study in Pennsylvania • Use of not-for-profit 501(c) Trust • Trust holds rights and assumes obligations for LUCs • Trust receives fees from private and public sources to administer LUCs Presented by MGP Partners

  8. Presented by MGP Partners

  9. Benefits and Services • Shifting burden of financial risk from government to Trust • Government $$ replaced with Trust funds • More efficient use of state resources • Creating institutional responsibility for stewardship of LUCs • Trust can integrate federal oversight with varying state programs • Consistent outcomes not requiring similar state programs • Quality assurance for remedy monitoring and compliance on a state, regional and national basis • Infrastructure created in Pilot Study can be duplicated efficiently in other states Presented by MGP Partners

  10. Proposed Trust Responsibilities • Certifying Viability of LUCs • Providing Financial Assurance • Monitoring Compliance • Reporting and Notice to Stakeholders • Ensuring Compliance with LUCs • Maintaining Database Presented by MGP Partners

  11. Public/Private Partnerships • USEPA/PADEP • MGP Partners LLC Potential Partners • Other States • Federal Agencies and Departments • Municipalities Presented by MGP Partners

  12. Final Comments • Risk-based closures require viable LUCs • LUCs must be maintained to be effective • Public/private trust may ensure the integrity of LUCs Presented by MGP Partners

More Related